What's ridiculous is your sampling bias. "Sampling bias"? I'm not the one who's pretending that Chernobyl is somehow representative. Nuclear power is operatin

What's ridiculous is your sampling bias. "Sampling bias"? I'm not the one who's pretending that Chernobyl is somehow representative. Nuclear power is operating safely in more than 30 countries, and has been for decades. You're picking a crap Soviet reactor and pretending that it's somehow representative. Then you accuse me of "sampling bias". Whatever, dude. Next thing you tell me that Fukushima doesn't count either. Fukushima doesn't count either. Magnitude 9 earthquake. Devastating tsunami. Outdated reactor that lost all power to its control systems. Still didn't kill any members of the general public (some plant workers were killed fighting the fire, but that hazard exists with any technology). So tell me, why should Fukushima "count" and just how safe do you expect something to be? Edit: to put things in perspective, suppose a similar magnitude 9 earthquake struck near the Three Gorges Dam in China. What do you suppose the death toll would be? Hundreds of thousands, minimum. Possibly millions. Compared to zero at Fukushima.